Question 1: Bob Davidson, what are you looking at? The ball is right at your damn feet and you aren't even looking at it! (And yes I know that since it was a ground ball, it doesn't matter where it lands after it passes the bag but there is no chance in hell the ball can curve around the bag on a grounder.)

Question 2: How hard would it be to correct this via replay? Or would we not be able to tell if the runner would have scored?

Of course, the Marlins end up failing to score and the Phillies win in 10.

I also find the Phillies announcers comical when they claim that they aren't able to tell if he got the call right. Heck, even Hawk thinks you're dumb, boys.

Coops4Aces

08-06-2010, 02:26 AM

"I was right on top of it, and it was wide of the bag," he said. "What the ball did when it went past me is irrelevant. ... I understand that's the winning run, but in my opinion it was foul."

-Bob Davidson

:rolling::rolling::rolling:

This idiot needs to learn from Jim Joyce. Admit you are wrong and all is forgiven. Don't insult people's intelligence cause then they hate you for life.

Rdy2PlayBall

08-06-2010, 02:39 AM

And people hate the Hawk? Those guys were annoying as hell... :rolleyes:

Nellie_Fox

08-06-2010, 02:56 AM

The guy who says "it looks like it hit something and spun back" is correct. The ball hits foul between home and third, where it looks like it either had a lot of side-spin or hit a spike mark or something, then when it hits down again in the outfield it is slightly fair. It is impossible to tell from that video where it was when it crossed the bag, which is all that matters.

Not at all a terrible call, at least not based on that video. Maybe wrong, but not clearly so.

BadBobbyJenks

08-06-2010, 03:44 AM

It took a weird bounce and came back into fair territory. Ump wasn't even looking at the ball after it went over the bag foul. Weird play, but still bad.

I had 50 on the Phillies :cool:

MisterB

08-06-2010, 04:23 AM

The guy who says "it looks like it hit something and spun back" is correct. The ball hits foul between home and third, where it looks like it either had a lot of side-spin or hit a spike mark or something, then when it hits down again in the outfield it is slightly fair. It is impossible to tell from that video where it was when it crossed the bag, which is all that matters.

Not at all a terrible call, at least not based on that video. Maybe wrong, but not clearly so.

I agree. The first bounce was dead on the foul line, the second looked just foul, and the third was obviously fair. Where did is pass the bag? Even on the slo-mo you can't really tell.

DumpJerry

08-06-2010, 08:03 AM

It was not the worse call of the day. That would be the call to throw a curve to Raburn.

hawkjt

08-06-2010, 09:29 AM

On the rule....can a groundball that never touches foul territory be ruled a foul ball?
Because that is what happened here.
Something in the water in florida yesterday where the local teams get screwed by weird plays?

Catwalk winning RBIs?
Balls that never go foul,are foul?

asindc

08-06-2010, 09:33 AM

The guy who says "it looks like it hit something and spun back" is correct. The ball hits foul between home and third, where it looks like it either had a lot of side-spin or hit a spike mark or something, then when it hits down again in the outfield it is slightly fair. It is impossible to tell from that video where it was when it crossed the bag, which is all that matters.

Not at all a terrible call, at least not based on that video. Maybe wrong, but not clearly so.

What's makes it a terrible call IMO is that the ump never looked to follow the ball after it passed the bag. He was poorly positioned to make the correct call, and compounded his error by defending it.

Coops4Aces

08-06-2010, 11:07 AM

On the rule....can a groundball that never touches foul territory be ruled a foul ball?
Because that is what happened here.
Something in the water in florida yesterday where the local teams get screwed by weird plays?

Catwalk winning RBIs?
Balls that never go foul,are foul?

Yeah, I'm not seeing what others are seeing. The bounce before the bag was fair and the bounce after the bag was fair.

ChiSoxGal85

08-06-2010, 11:17 AM

It was not the worse call of the day. That would be the call to throw a curve to Raburn.
:rolling:

asindc

08-06-2010, 11:54 AM

Yeah, I'm not seeing what others are seeing. The bounce before the bag was fair and the bounce after the bag was fair.

As some point before the ball passed the bag, it had bounced in foul territory.

SOXSINCE'70

08-06-2010, 11:59 AM

It was not the worse call of the day. That would be the call to throw a curve to Raburn.

Correction..... A HANGING curve ball.:cool:

LoveYourSuit

08-06-2010, 12:00 PM

The guy who says "it looks like it hit something and spun back" is correct. The ball hits foul between home and third, where it looks like it either had a lot of side-spin or hit a spike mark or something, then when it hits down again in the outfield it is slightly fair. It is impossible to tell from that video where it was when it crossed the bag, which is all that matters.

Not at all a terrible call, at least not based on that video. Maybe wrong, but not clearly so.

That indeed is the rule.

But I see countless times where the umps don't even follow that rule. They are looking at where the ball hits past the bag instead of where it crossed over the bag.

This guy did neither.

PorkChopExpress

08-06-2010, 12:21 PM

That indeed is the rule.

But I see countless times where the umps don't even follow that rule. They are looking at where the ball hits past the bag instead of where it crossed over the bag.

This guy did neither.

I thought he was looking at where the ball crossed over the bag. I think he got it wrong, but I don't think he wasn't looking at the right place.

doublem23

08-06-2010, 12:52 PM

This may come as shock to you guys, but those balls zoom down the 3B line when they're hit correctly. Umps are generally watching the batter to make sure he doesn't smoke a ball down the line into his face, he can't be sitting there, ambivalently hovering over 3B for the 2-3 times that rule has to come into play. Its very difficult for a guy to put himself into proper position over the bag when he has, oh, 1 second to react to the ball.

Was it a blown call? Likely, but I don't think this was the case of a ump blatantly making a mistake, rather it was just the limitations of what the human body can do. This wasn't like the blown perfect game where the ump had all the time in the world to get into position to watch the bag at 1st and he still blew that call.

downstairs

08-06-2010, 01:17 PM

It couldn't be more clear... it bounces *on* the line all the way down. It was fair. It was never foul. Watch the slo-mo.

Ex-Chicagoan

08-06-2010, 01:46 PM

It couldn't be more clear... it bounces *on* the line all the way down. It was fair. It was never foul. Watch the slo-mo.

I saw the same thing - on the line.

Of course, I had the benefit of slow-motion replay in an air-conditioned office with almost no chance of taking a line drive in the teeth...

Coops4Aces

08-06-2010, 01:47 PM

This may come as shock to you guys, but those balls zoom down the 3B line when they're hit correctly. Umps are generally watching the batter to make sure he doesn't smoke a ball down the line into his face, he can't be sitting there, ambivalently hovering over 3B for the 2-3 times that rule has to come into play. Its very difficult for a guy to put himself into proper position over the bag when he has, oh, 1 second to react to the ball.

Was it a blown call? Likely, but I don't think this was the case of a ump blatantly making a mistake, rather it was just the limitations of what the human body can do. This wasn't like the blown perfect game where the ump had all the time in the world to get into position to watch the bag at 1st and he still blew that call.

Everyone saw that the ball was fair except for him. I guess you're right though, its a split second decision. I posted this because it's another reason for expanded instant replay.

I wasn't even pissed when I saw this, just shocked that he blew the call. I had no real rooting interest and have nothing against either club. The thing that drove me crazy after the game was his BS. Tim Kurkjian hit it on the head in his tweet:
You don't argue that you're right even after you see the replay that clearly proves you're wrong. Own up to it like Jim Joyce. Human error.

downstairs

08-06-2010, 02:12 PM

I saw the same thing - on the line.

Of course, I had the benefit of slow-motion replay in an air-conditioned office with almost no chance of taking a line drive in the teeth...

I understand human error sometimes, but I'm very very reluctant to ever forgive bad fair/foul calls in the infield. I pretty much expect 100% on those.

thomas35forever

08-06-2010, 02:14 PM

:rolling:
I love the announcers' reactions. You'd think they were in Game 7 of the World Series. They make Hawk seem level-headed.

And is anyone surprised at all by Davidson defending his error? This is the same idiot that got into a shouting match with Joe Maddon back in May after they made contact with each other.

Iwritecode

08-06-2010, 02:15 PM

Everyone saw that the ball was fair except for him. I guess you're right though, its a split second decision. I posted this because it's another reason for expanded instant replay.

This is where the instant replay call gets murky. What if they reviewed it and reversed the call? Where do the runners go?

The play stopped as soon as the call was made. Unlike homerun reviews where it's either a strike or everyone rounds the bases.

Coops4Aces

08-06-2010, 02:23 PM

This is where the instant replay call gets murky. What if they reviewed it and reversed the call? Where do the runners go?

The play stopped as soon as the call was made. Unlike homerun reviews where it's either a strike or everyone rounds the bases.

That's easy. Ground-rule double, Marlins win.

Iwritecode

08-06-2010, 02:31 PM

That's easy. Ground-rule double, Marlins win.

What if the runner was on first and there was possible play at the plate?

Now that I think about it, even homerun calls can get messy.

Just think about that homerun that wasn't in game 3 of the 2005 WS. If they reviewed and corrected that where would the runner have ended up?

doublem23

08-06-2010, 02:32 PM

Everyone saw that the ball was fair except for him. I guess you're right though, its a split second decision. I posted this because it's another reason for expanded instant replay.

I wasn't even pissed when I saw this, just shocked that he blew the call. I had no real rooting interest and have nothing against either club. The thing that drove me crazy after the game was his BS. Tim Kurkjian hit it on the head in his tweet:

Oh yeah, I'm not arguing against expanded use of replay, this is a clear example of how modern technology can be used to aid in plays that the a human simply can't make in real-time. The guy's got less than a second to track that ball from home to third, there's no way he can accurately judge where it crosses the bag.

This is where the instant replay call gets murky. What if they reviewed it and reversed the call? Where do the runners go?

The play stopped as soon as the call was made. Unlike homerun reviews where it's either a strike or everyone rounds the bases.

I can see that argument in terms of plays in which the ball is live (like, did the 2B really touch the bag when he turned that DP?) but with these calls down the line, the answer is easy; play them out as if the ball was fair, see what happens, and then take the 10 seconds to review the film to make sure the correct call was made. If the ball really was foul, everyone resets, and the game continues as if nothing happened.

Coops4Aces

08-06-2010, 02:39 PM

What if the runner was on first and there was possible play at the plate?

Now that I think about it, even homerun calls can get messy.

Just think about that homerun that wasn't in game 3 of the 2005 WS. If they reviewed and corrected that where would the runner have ended up?
1. Ground rule double, runner on 1st goes to third.

2. Ground rule double

Iwritecode

08-06-2010, 03:06 PM

I can see that argument in terms of plays in which the ball is live (like, did the 2B really touch the bag when he turned that DP?) but with these calls down the line, the answer is easy; play them out as if the ball was fair, see what happens, and then take the 10 seconds to review the film to make sure the correct call was made. If the ball really was foul, everyone resets, and the game continues as if nothing happened.

I like this better than just an automatic ground-rule double but I imagine that could be confusing for the players. Most of them are used to just stopping the play once they've seen a ball has been called foul.

They would have to keep the play going on the possibility that the call will be over-turned.

Slappy

08-06-2010, 03:47 PM

It was not the worse call of the day. That would be the call to throw a curve to Raburn.

No way. That was a flat and just plain terrible curve that Bobby threw. I think if that pitch is executed better the outcome would be pretty different.

On this call though, it seemed like the problem was that the ump made the call too soon. That could also mean that he saw the ball go foul, and then we see it come back fair. It's hard to tell, but from that angle, it looks like he might have blown it. Tough call, though.

TheVulture

08-06-2010, 07:28 PM

"I was right on top of it, and it was wide of the bag," he said. "What the ball did when it went past me is irrelevant. ... I understand that's the winning run, but in my opinion it was foul."

-Bob Davidson

:rolling::rolling::rolling:

This idiot needs to learn from Jim Joyce. Admit you are wrong and all is forgiven. Don't insult people's intelligence cause then they hate you for life.

He's right - once the ball passes the bag, it is irrelevant where it ends up. The ball was clearly in foul territory when it hit dirt right in front of the bag, whether it ends up in fair territory beyond the bag is irrelevant.

TheVulture

08-06-2010, 07:33 PM

What's makes it a terrible call IMO is that the ump never looked to follow the ball after it passed the bag. He was poorly positioned to make the correct call, and compounded his error by defending it.

He had no reason to watch the ball after it passed the bag since the ball already hit the ground before it reached the bag. If it's in foul territory after hitting the ground when it reaches the base then it's a foul ball.

TheVulture

08-06-2010, 07:34 PM

On this call though, it seemed like the problem was that the ump made the call too soon.

Wow. Some of the posters in this thread really need to review the rules on foul balls.

Coops4Aces

08-06-2010, 07:38 PM

He had no reason to watch the ball after it passed the bag since the ball already hit the ground before it reached the bag. If it's in foul territory after hitting the ground when it reaches the base then it's a foul ball.
:scratch: Are we watching the same play?

The ball clearly hits the line before the bag and then clearly hits inside the line after the bag. It is physically impossible for that ball to be in foul territory when passing the bag. IMPOSSIBLE.

Coops4Aces

08-06-2010, 07:43 PM

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/7030/ballonline.jpg

TheVulture

08-06-2010, 08:16 PM

:scratch: Are we watching the same play?

The ball clearly hits the line before the bag and then clearly hits inside the line after the bag. It is physically impossible for that ball to be in foul territory when passing the bag. IMPOSSIBLE.

The ball is in foul territory when it bounces immediately prior to the ball reaching the bag. It doesn't matter where the ball is after it passes the bag so there is no reason for an umpire to follow a groundball after it passes the bag. Why do you keep bringing that up? Please read the rules.

Coops4Aces

08-06-2010, 09:38 PM

The ball is in foul territory when it bounces immediately prior to the ball reaching the bag. It doesn't matter where the ball is after it passes the bag so there is no reason for an umpire to follow a groundball after it passes the bag. Why do you keep bringing that up? Please read the rules.

Don't try to teach me the rules, I know the rules. It must be fair when it passes the bag. If it fair on the bounce before the bag (which it is, see the link above) and far on the bounce after the bag (everyone agrees it is?) then it crossed the bag in fair territory.

doublem23

08-07-2010, 12:26 AM

He's right - once the ball passes the bag, it is irrelevant where it ends up. The ball was clearly in foul territory when it hit dirt right in front of the bag, whether it ends up in fair territory beyond the bag is irrelevant.

Clearly foul? Dude, we're not watching the same play, for a ball to be clearly foul you have to see dirt between the white of the line and the ball, and on it's last bounce before it crossed the bag there's no way you can say you saw that. I'm not saying you're wrong for thinking the ball was foul, it very well may have been, but there's no conclusive evidence to support that claim.

If it was foul, it took one of the weirdest bounces I've ever seen a ball take.

Nellie_Fox

08-07-2010, 01:12 AM

If it was foul, it took one of the weirdest bounces I've ever seen a ball take.It was a weird bounce no matter how you look at it. How often does a ball hit down the left-field line by a right-handed hitter move toward fair instead of toward foul?